Nikita Reboot: One Step Forward for Asian-Americans, Two Steps Back for Women

Thanks to the CW's fairly aggressive marketing campaign, its pretty hard to not be aware of new Nikita reboot airing this fall. While I will admit that the television network is to be applauded for casting Maggie Q., an Asian-American woman, as the title character, this show looks to be yet another edition of the objectification of women under the guise of empowerment. (I also would not get too excited about the racial casting of the show - of the seven other actors listed on wikipedia for the series, six are white).

The show is essentially about a thin, attractive woman that kicks butt while wearing tiny and/or tight clothing. I know there is an actual plot buried somewhere in the explosions and gratuitoous clevage shots, but as far as you can tell from the promo clips, it is clearly not that important for you to understand in order to enjoy the show.

I honestly should not critique this show so harshly; after all, I did enjoy watching such shows as Dollhouse and Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, both of which sexually objectified the "strong female characters" in some manner or another (though I would argue that for the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the objectification landed solely on the character of Cameron, leaving Sarah Connor to portray a more realisticly strong and gritty woman, who wasn't going to wear tight leather pants to a shootout). That being said, the poster for this show is what really makes my blood boil:

Beyond simply being dressed in a sexually provocative manner, (and in an outfit that is certainly not the most practical for fighting, or the most comfortable), Maggie Q. is shown with a large tattoo of a phoenix on her hip. Admittedly, the tattoo is real and not just a photoshop job, however combined with the revealing leotard outfit and loose, fan blown hair, the tattoo leaves me with the impression that the CW is showing off a prized wild horse that has been branded, but not entirely tamed. If the CW had chosen to portray the actress in, say, loose cargo pants, and a tank (even if it showed significant cleavage), I might believe that this show was about an empowered woman. Instead, I cannot help but feel that I'm watch yet another version of the Fighting Fuck-Toy - a woman there to be aggressive, only so far as it is sexually pleasing to men and the male gaze of the camera.

Sexy Nail Polish?

Naming nail polish can be a difficult task - how many ways can you come up with to say light pink? Nail polish company O.P.I is pretty good with coming up with some crazy, yet appropriate names, but fashion diary BleachBlack has taken it to a new level. Back in April, they released a new silvery cream shade. What did they call this color? Jizz. Yep. Now you can wear a nail color that reminds you of your latest illicit tryst. (The first color they released was also pretty amusing - a dark metallic green labeled Dickweed).

But just giving their nail polish a sensational label is not all that BleachBlack did. Last week the fashion diary released a video advertising their new polish. What is the problem? Well, the video borders on soft porn, with a basically nude woman rolling around on a bed. I'm not really sure what about this advertisement really works for the company (besides the fact that I'm talking about it of course). I would have thought the video was for a lingerie brand, or even an escort service. Also, with a label of Jizz? As far as I'm concerned, that should be a mostly nude man rolling around. But I suppose that -really- wouldn't sell polish to anyone but Adam Lambert, so what do I know.

You can check out the video here. Be warned, it is definitely not safe for work (hence why I'm not just embedding the video directly).

Soft Porn Plane Commercial

Release earlier this week, this advertisement from Russian airline Avianova shows a group of men living out what college humor would have us believe is every man's wet dream - getting to watch a handful of hot women wash something (an airplane) clad only in skimpy bikinis:

In case you needed help deciphering why this advertisement is problematic, here's my top five reasons why this commercial is horrific:

1) Flight attendants don't wash planes - that job goes to someone else, and presumably is not done by hand with a bucket and sponge. That is simply not time or cost effective.

2) Not all flight attendants are models. Or female.

3) Flight attendants give you drinks, peanuts, and scold you for not wearing your seatbelt. They do not perform sexual services, or perform in a sexual manner (except maybe the girls on Hooters Airlines, I assume their job is based on somewhat sexuality just as much at 10,000 feet as it is on the ground).

4) This commercial is not actually selling the services of the airline, but the objectification of the female body under the male gaze (quite literally, considering the creepy COMPLETELY CLOTHED men watching. Got to love power dynamics).

5) The advertisement deprives the flight attendants' of their personal power, and undermines any of their desire to be considered professionals in their business, not simply objects of lust. In fact, thanks to the camera work, these women are pretty much just reduced to their body parts.

edit: Hooters airlines is not actually in existence anymore, having ceased public operation in 2006.